but then i think hmmm...if it were my wife or my mom maybe i wouldn't be as OK with it...
interesting issue.
This subject always comes up between us photogs and the editor when we cover a tragic event. What do we show without being offensive. Obviously we photogs are willing to show more than the editors and the paper has missed running some excellent photos because they are too scared to run something controversial. My editor always asks, "What if this was your **** or your ****," and so on. But the thing is it's always going to be someone's mom or someone's brother. And if we we are always forced to take that into account than people woiuld be blind to what happens in this world.
Take Vietnam for example. The photos out of Nam were the first to show the true horrors of war and that was a huge part of the backlash against it. But what if everything single photog and publisher were to ask themselves 'What if this were my brother," and they didn't show the photos? Where would we be now?
Now I'm not comparing these accident photos to war photos, just merely addressing the Idea that "What if this was my ****" should be asked before running a photo.
Last year 6 locals died when they ran a stop sign on a farm road, were hit by a truck, and plunged into a canal. Two days later I was there when the pulled up the body of a 16 year old victim. You can see her leg and on the high res version you can see her gray toes on one foot if you blow it up enough. We ran this shot(rumor is that it's now used at Sac State to debate this very topic) on the front page right next to a shot I took of the mother on scene. Obviously we got complaints from readers as we always do with controversial shots. But not a single complaint came from the family. Even with the photo of the mother seeing her daughter being taken out of the water.
So the idea of "What if it were" should not be taken into account for every single photo. Just because a shot may be controversial and may not be liked, it doesn't mean it shouldn't run.
*UPDATE to my rant: Many people call controversial shots sensationalism. Shot's with no real purpose other then to show something outrageous or to sell papers. Running the lady above in her bra being loaded onto the chopper. That would be considered sensationalism. It doesn't actually add anything to the story other than showing what happened to the victim. That and the blood is why we wouldn't show it in our local paper(other papers would show it though). I showed it here assuming that most photogs would be more accepting of what accidents look like in real life as opposed to the cleverly composed shots you see hiding this kind of stuff or the wide shots that don't really show anything.